Absconder

2024 PLD 688 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 62(9)Elections for seat of National Assembly/Provincial AssemblyNomination papersAbsconderFugitive from lawProclaimed offenderEligibility to contest elections

Disadvantage, if any, for being a proclaimed offender ordinarily relates only to the case in which a person has been so proclaimed, and not to the other cases or matters which have no nexus to that case

In the absence of any contrary provision in the Constitution or the Elections Act 2017 ("Act"), status of a person as a proclaimed offender in a criminal case does not affect his civil right to contest an election

Clearly, if a proclaimed offender can contest elections someone who is only alleged to be an absconder can equally do so.

2021 PLD 831 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(a)(v), 14(c) & 31-AAcquiring assets beyond known sources of income and avoiding process of CourtAppreciation of evidenceBenami holdingsAbsconderProofEx-Pakistan leaveEffectDefence evidence

Accused was holder of public office who was alleged to have acquired assets beyond his known sources of income and was also alleged to have absconded to avoid process of Court

Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment along with fine and forfeiture of properties

Validity

Prosecution did not produce the officer to whom any proclamation was entrusted

Absconding of accused was not proved by prosecution and at the most accused could be said to have long disappearance on his part

Such disappearance was not unlawful as the accused was abroad pursuant to approval of Ex-Pakistan leave for three years by competent authority

If brothers-in-law and mother-in-law of accused were Benamidar of accused then why their other properties were not forfeited

Version of accused throughout was that his two brothers-in-law were abroad from where they used to send money to him

Accused remained abroad for three years and his saving could not be thrown out from consideration

Accused was under obligation to offer a reasonable explanation although not beyond doubt

Word 'reasonable' did not mean that accused had to prove his innocence by producing evidence of high quality or at the same yardstick which was for prosecution, it simply meant 'something that was logical and exhibited good sense'

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

AbsconderTrialProcedure

When court had declared an accused absconder, his case was supposed to be separated from case of other accused.

2019 PLD 23 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

AbsconderEntitlement to reliefScope

Person who was fugitive from law and did not surrender, would deprive himself of the relief claimed.

2018 CLC 1301 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Part-II, Chapt. 1 [Arts. 8 - 28]Fundamental RightsAbsconderScope

Person who is fugitive of law, does not have right of criminal appeal in the matter, in which he has been declared absconder unless he surrenders

Person who has been declared absconder cannot be held to have no right to file any appeal before any forum, in respect of matters which have no nexus and relation to proceedings in which, he was declared absconder

Fundamental Rights of a fugitive of law for their enforcement through Court of law are not suspended as it is not the intention of legislature nor the same is permissible under the Constitution.

2014 MLD 280 SHARIAT-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497 & 498BailAbsconderWhile deciding the bail matter, neither any deeper appreciation, nor detailed scrutiny of the evidence was permissibleOnly tentative assessment of the record was required for that purposeBail matters always had to be decided on merits and technicalities should not defeat the justice to be administered

Absconder, no doubt would loose some rights, like bail, but overall circumstances had to be kept in sight while deciding bail matter.

2014 PCrLJ 1787 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Fugitive from law and Courts loses some of his normal rights granted by procedural as well as substantive law.

2014 PLD 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 189, 190 & 199Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 324Constitutional petitionAbsconderQatl-e-amd and attempt to Qatl-e-amdJudgment passed by Supreme CourtApplicabilityPetitioner was acquitted by Trial Court but High Court convicted him and sentenced him to imprisonment for lifePetitioner filed appeal before Supreme Court but did not surrender and abscondedSupreme Court acquitted co-accused of the petitioner but dismissed appeal of petitioner being not maintainablePetitioner sought acquittal from High Court on the plea that his co-accused had been acquitted by Supreme CourtValidity

Fugitive from law had lost normal rights as by himself frustrating procedure of law in complete derogation of direction recorded in judgment passed by court of competent jurisdiction

Absconder could not seek justice from a court of law

Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was not entertainable, which should have not been entertained by the office

Until and unless petitioner surrendered himself, thereby joining process of law, he could not claim relief sought for through constitutional petition

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 562 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Absconder

Absconder looses some of his normal rights.

2009 YLR 181 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34Bail, grant ofAbsconderFurther inquiryFatal blow was attributed to co-accused, while no overt act was attributed to accused in the commission of the crimeEven Lalkara was not attributed to accusedProceedings as envisaged under S.512, Cr.P.C., had been drawn against him

Even otherwise no absolute rule existed to the effect that a fugitive from law should, under no circumstances, be enlarged on bail, though abscondence did constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail

In bail matters no universal rule existed which could be pressed into service in all cases as every case had distinguishable features

In the present case no overt act had been attributed to accused except that he was present at the place of occurrence having past enmity with the complainant and deceased

Case against accused required further inquiry into his guilt

Bail, in such cases could not be withheld as a matter of punishment

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

1960 PLD 18 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Absconder Absconder-Judgment in absconder's case-High Court Bench in disposing of absconder's appeal adopting reasoning of earlier Bench which had heard and dismissed appeal of absconder's accomplices-Omission to apply mind independently to evidence recorded in separate trial of absconder-Procedure disapproved-Case sent back to be heard by different Bench.

1955 PLD 679 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Absconder

Finding as to nature of offence arrived at in case against companions-Not' binding in-case against absconder Sentence.